Death by incompatibility: A Samsung Galaxy Gear review

Samsung built a smartwatch but forgot to make it do stuff.

When a new article is posted on the Internet, the first addition to the comments section is often an inconsequential, one-word statement: "First!"

The frequent "First!" cry of the Internet troll declares some strange pride in being the first to comment on an article. The commenter put little to no effort into the post; it added nothing to the conversation, and it was completely devoid of substance. The troll did secure the spot at the top of the thread, though, and every additional commenter will be forced to scroll past the pointless contribution.

The Samsung Galaxy Gear says "First!" in hardware form. Samsung has beaten Google and Apple as the first major manufacturer to market, but much like the Internet commenter, it has sacrificed substance for the sake of timing. The Galaxy Gear is a product (with some impressive internals, no less) that has such limited use and such crippling compatibility requirements that it is currently the equivalent of hardware spam. While the Gear won't even come close to serving the needs of the vast majority of people, we're going to be talking about smartwatches a lot in the coming months, so if nothing else, the Gear provides a great starting point.

The hardware

Before we get into the list of deal-breakers, though, let's talk about the actual device. The face of the Gear features a 1.63-inch, 320×320 AMOLED touchscreen. A macro shot reveals the screen to have an S-stripe subpixel layout, the same display tech used in the Note 2. The Gear's display is passable, but the 277PPI means this is not the super-dense pixel party to which we've grown accustomed. Samsung's software doesn't push the display very hard, though, so it's not a big deal.

The exterior of the case is pretty sparse, with only a power button and a few pinhole mics on either side. In this tiny space, Samsung manages to pack a 800MHz Exynos 4212 processor, 512MB of memory, 4GB of storage, and a whopping 315 mAh battery. CPU-Z recognizes the Exynos as a dual-core chip, but the second core seems to be permanently disabled.

Enlarge/ One side of the band, which houses a 1.9MP camera and a speaker in the clasp.

The most unique aspect of the Galaxy Gear is that there are electronics built into the entire watch. Unlike the Pebble (or a sixth-gen iPod Nano equipped with a watchband), which has a "dumb" band and contains all the electronics in the body of the watch, the Gear integrates a 1.9MP camera into the watchband and a speaker into the clasp. The side effect of this is that the band is a permanent part of the watch—you won't be seeing swappable bands any time soon.

Enlarge/ The stiff, supportive band of the Galaxy Gear stops it from resting on a wrist like a normal watch.

At about 11 mm (0.43") in depth, the case of the Gear is the normal thickness of a wrist watch. There's nothing about the depth that should make it look bad or geeky—men's jewelry watches are usually in the 5-14 mm range. Despite being in the size range of a normal watch, the Gear still looks unusual on the wrist thanks to the rubbery watchband. A normal chain link watchband is full of hinges, so it can never "support" the watch. With no support, the watch collapses onto the wrist, and any slack in the band will hang down by the clasp. The Gear's rubber band, however, is so stiff and supportive that any slack will cause the watch to "float" around your wrist and appear much thicker than it is. It's more like wearing a rigid bracelet than a real watch. The picture above tells the tale. On a table, a normal watch collapses into a heap, but the Gear is so stiff that it's self-supportive.

It seems that the primary reason for the rigid band is to give the camera a home and a sturdy connection to the rest of the phone. Considering the Gear requires a smartphone to be useful, the only reason for it to have a camera is convenience—you're guaranteed to have a much better one in your pocket. Without the camera, Samsung would only need to stash the speaker somewhere, and the band could be removable—or made out of something classier, like metal or leather. That would have helped its appearance dramatically.

The Gear with the charger case attached.

The Gear with the charger case attached.

The front of the charger case, with pogo pins.

The open charger case, and the back of the Gear. The gold pogo contacts transfer power from the plugged-in charger to the Gear.

The back of the charger case, with micro-USB port.

The clasp.

One neat solution Samsung has come up with: the Gear has no on-board micro-USB port. Rather than make the watch thicker, the Gear's micro-USB port is offloaded to a separate "charging case." A plastic shell clips around the watch and connects to the internals via pogo pins on the bottom of the watch case. The shell has a door that surrounds the screen and locks into place for a secure connection. There is even an NFC chip in the charger to easily pair the Gear to your Samsung phone.

Samsung's designers adorned the front of the case with faux leather plastic and stitching. Unlike the Note 3, though, this isn't soft touch plastic, just hard, regular plastic, so it's more like faux faux-leather.

The software

The Galaxy Gear runs a heavily customized version of Android 4.2.2 (some parts are still referred to as "Touchwiz"). Navigation is fast and easy: Android's Back button is handled by swiping down from the top of the screen, tapping the power button works as Home, and there is the occasional on-screen menu button in the top right of the screen.

The software functions similarly to Google Glass. Everything is in a simple, horizontal UI. The "home screen" is a configurable watch face that can show the time, date, weather, and/or app shortcuts. Swiping left and right will take you through your primary apps, one at a time; tapping on an icon will open the app. Pretty simple stuff. The watch connects to your Samsung phone via Bluetooth and has a companion app that you can use to configure settings, install apps, and even make the Gear ring for easy locating if you lose it.

The Gear will turn on when you lift your arm up to check the time. Indeed, it can pretty reliably detect when you're looking at it thanks to the accelerometers. The detection feels pretty slow, though. You're staring at a blank screen for about a second before it kicks on. It's definitely not "glanceable," and the short delay is irritating.

The software itself is unattractive. It's a bleak mix of black, white, and orange coupled with primitive artwork. It reminds me of Android circa Gingerbread or Froyo, when the UI looked like something some programmer threw together in his spare time. The black background is probably to conserve power on the AMOLED display, but if you've ever used a 6th gen iPod nano, you know small devices don't have to be like this. So many screens are so completely devoid of color, you'd be forgiven for thinking the display was only capable of three colors.

The above middle screenshot is of one of the cooler features—the media controls. This app will act as a remote Bluetooth controller for whatever music app you currently have open on the paired device. It will display the track name while playing and allow you to adjust the phone's volume.

There's no keyboard, so other than the touchscreen, your only other form of input comes via a stripped-down version of S-Voice. You can dictate text messages (but not e-mails), make phone calls, launch apps, add calendar events, and bring up the weather, all with your voice. There's no answer service, though (for instance "how old is Barack Obama?"), and despite the integrated speaker, S-Voice never speaks. It just quietly displays what you asked for.

S-Voice is extremely slow—you can really feel the 800MHz processor chug. It usually takes a few seconds to open and a few more to respond to a spoken command. Performance across the board is not very good. Indeed, the UI drops animation frames all over the place. After using the device, I felt like I was back in the stuttery Android dark ages.

Enlarge/ Phone calls work great, and here is a rare instance of the Gear displaying actual colors. I am also obligated to mention "Dick Tracy."

Phone calls are the best piece of functionality on the Gear. The device is basically a wrist-mounted speaker phone. You can dial with S-Voice or with a microscopic dial pad. You can answer incoming calls, hang up, mute, or pass the call to your Bluetooth headset or smartphone. The quality on either end isn't spectacular, but it's a watch—what were you expecting?

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

I am actually looking forward to the smartwatch wars. The first company to come out with a good one will most likely cause me to switch to (or stay with, if android) their OS. Here are just a few of the features that I am looking for:

1. Great battery life. About a week with regular usage at a minimum. I cannot be charging my watch as much as I charge my cellphone.2. Pedometers and other fitness apps. This is the real reason I am looking for a watch. I can buy a fitbit etc, but having one that provides this functionality and can be tethered to my phone is a big plus. To me it is similar to when the iphone combined a phone and ipod. 3. Notifications. This could save battery life on the phone. If I get an email/text message and I am able to get a preview of the message (or even just the recipient) without having to check the message.4. Look as close to a regular watch as possible. I think some of the smart watches go overboard. They are either humongous and try to pack as much as possible into the watch so they can boast a long (and partially useless....camera???) feature list.

OK! unless I am seriously missing something...Sony came out with Smartwatch 2...(not 1 but 2...meaning its already the successor to its first smartwatch) before the Galaxy Gear...which pretty much means Samsung was nowhere close to First!!!

"A smartwatch will not be successful without a vibrant ecosystem of hardware and app developers."

Tell that to Steve Jobs as he announces the first iPhone, which did not allow third-party apps and as far as Jobs could make it, only supported Apple's accessories. How did that turn out? Not that Samsung is Apple, but if you build something good enough, they will come. edit: Although I suspect the original iPhone was a better phone than this is a watch.

I can't help but wonder if this whole smart watch craze was a ruse by Apple to distract competitors while they work on what they really think The Next Big Thing will be. That, or they'll refine the concept after seeing what everyone else gets wrong and in a couple of years the average consumer will think they invented it.

This seems mad. The pebble is a better smart watch and the Kreyos looks like it will be (cross my fingers, as I have funded this on indigogo...). As has been said the Sony watch has much better compatibility even if its features are still limited. Let us not forget that the crowdfunded versions are half the price of this lemon.

Overall, I am looking for a smart watch that provides useful information so I don't have to drag my phone out my pocket all the time, can manage (with reduced functionality) away from the phone, good app support and good battery life. Errr.... it seems that this "watch" misses all of that.

Colour screens are nice, but come a long way down the pecking order, and battery life is not worth the trade off. Rubbish camera... yeah, no thanks.

Samsung make great phones, but watches? This seems very poorly thought out.

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

I think you are right but to play devil's advocate: pocket-watch owners might have said the same thing when wristwatches first came out.

With the discussion on the relative size of this item to a men's watches, I propose that any smartwatch reviews in the near future also include a picture of said smartwatch on Casey's small, feminine wrist.

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

I think you are right but to play devil's advocate: pocket-watch owners might have said the same thing when wristwatches first came out.

Does that mean that only a new World War will make smartwatches popular? (It was only the convenience of the wristwatch in the trenches and the increased requirements of precise timing brought by coordination with indirect fire artillery etc. that made it fashionable for men. Of course you can say that it would have happened eventually in any case, but there is no way to prove that.)

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

I think you are right but to play devil's advocate: pocket-watch owners might have said the same thing when wristwatches first came out.

But back then the only function of a watch was to tell time, or the date on more complex models, which wristwatches could accomodate.

Phones these days can handle email, video, games, spreadsheets, face-to-face video communication, movies, massive song libraries, take pictures, hold contact info, appointment calendars... the bar of relevance to high jump has been set pretty high at this point.

Seems like Calculator Watch 2.0. It might have a real value, but the clunkyness just makes it look awkward. Also, I can't see how it could replace a smartphone, unless the long term goal is to eliminate the smartphone and allow us to just have a watch and a tablet. Still, you aren't going to be typing many emails or texts on this thing, and if all you have for text input is talk-to-text, it will only succeed in making society more annoying.

I was hoping smartwatches were going to be more of a security device than anything else. Allow it to reduce your security demands when it is in proximity to your smartphone, tablet, or PC. If that's all it did, you could even design it to look like more traditional watches.

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

I think you are right but to play devil's advocate: pocket-watch owners might have said the same thing when wristwatches first came out.

Does that mean that only a new World War will make smartwatches popular? (It was only the convenience of the wristwatch in the trenches and the increased requirements of precise timing brought by coordination with indirect fire artillery etc. that made it fashionable for men. Of course you can say that it would have happened eventually in any case, but there is no way to prove that.)

So far the relevance of wristwatches has been held as a fashion accessory, with faceplate and wristband designs providing the reason to wear it rather than the convenience of use. Fashion could still save this one even if the functionality doesn't match that of a smartphone, but that stiff wristband would kill that aspect outright.

With the discussion on the relative size of this item to a men's watches, I propose that any smartwatch reviews in the near future also include a picture of said smartwatch on Casey's small, feminine wrist.

The one thing I will say about this 'watch', it probably sped the official bump of my Note 2 to 4.3, which I hope is soon.

My smartwatch wish list:

1. Standalone usefulness a. Great running / fitness device without phone - built in GPS, maybe even heart rate monitor. b. Excellent music app c. 3G for notifications (Maybe even some phone calls, but the 3G could be in a highly power managed state)2. Style3. At least 48 hours of battery life

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

My desired use-case is to be able to use it when cycling. Having to reach in my pocket to change the volume, glance at a text, check the gps app, etc is tedious and downright dangerous at times. I'd really love a smart watch that could handle these things well. Bonus marks if it includes heartbeat monitoring ala the Mio Alpha

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

Be strapped to your arm. It is supposed to do a lot less than a phone, but be small enough you can conviniently carry it on your arm for more accessible time and notifications.

I'm still not sure what a smartwatch is supposed to do exactly. I mean, it tells time, and is perhaps a slightly more convenient way of looking at certain apps, but what is it supposed to do that a phone can't?

Many things can become more convenient I guess but I won't buy one until the battery life can match average "dumb" watch. C'mon guys (phone company) stop with the MOAR CORES pissing contest and start massive joint R&D for battery life or something.

These gadgets should only provide 'smart' notifications and non interactive services , and that is it. No voice commands, no apps but only optional extra features , no cameras , no nonsense.

I would like to see appealing storage and authentication features with these things. Mount its internal storage via wireless direct connection . Fingerprint reader to unlock near by computers and cellphones .

"A smartwatch will not be successful without a vibrant ecosystem of hardware and app developers."

Tell that to Steve Jobs as he announces the first iPhone, which did not allow third-party apps and as far as Jobs could make it, only supported Apple's accessories. How did that turn out? Not that Samsung is Apple, but if you build something good enough, they will come. edit: Although I suspect the original iPhone was a better phone than this is a watch.

At the time of the first iPhone being released other software ecosystems for smart devices were, at best, an afterthought. Typically you'd see a handful of java apps, few expensive Windows Mobile apps, or software for Palm devices you'd have to sideload.

The Apple App Store was a response the the public wanting more software (who wants to use web apps?) and jailbreakers. Apple just happened to put some actual thought into it whereas MS, Palm, etc couldn't be bothered to get out of the old paradigms.

"A smartwatch will not be successful without a vibrant ecosystem of hardware and app developers."

Tell that to Steve Jobs as he announces the first iPhone, which did not allow third-party apps and as far as Jobs could make it, only supported Apple's accessories. How did that turn out? Not that Samsung is Apple, but if you build something good enough, they will come. edit: Although I suspect the original iPhone was a better phone than this is a watch.

There is a big difference between a device (smartwatch) that is supposed to be an extension to another device and a device (smartphone) that is supposed to be a "replacement" to one or more other devices. Smartphones worked because you didn't depend on other hardware for "full" functionality, as opposed to this (and most likely every other) smartwatch.

Or do you think that iPhone would have been equally successful if it only worked with Mac's and only, say, the last two version of OSX? Because that is the equivalent "level" that this smartwatch is launched at.

Ron Amadeo / Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work.